Bone found in Jersey abuse probe 'almost certainly wood'

The fragment of 'bone' at the centre of the investigation into abuse at a former Jersey children's home is likely to be wood or a piece of coconut shell, according to scientists testing the evidence.

The discovery of what was thought to be a piece of a child's skull in February drew worldwide media attention and has been followed by what police believe is evidence of another two children buried in the cellar of the Haut de la Garenne home. However, experts at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit have told Jersey police that multiple tests show the fragment is not bone and 'almost certainly' a piece of wood.

Speaking last night to The Observer, Dr Tom Higham, the laboratory's deputy director, confirmed reports of the findings in a Sunday newspaper, after the 'bone' was sent to be dated. 'We have tested it using a number of methods,' he said. 'They all pointed in the same direction.'

In a letter to Lenny Harper, the island's deputy police chief, the experts stated: 'We concluded that the sample was not in fact bone but almost certainly a piece of wood. Its curvature may have had something to do with it being misidentified. It appears to be more likely a seed casing or a small piece of coconut. Our conclusion is that this sample is not bone and not human.'

Last night Jersey police issued a statement saying that officers were first told in early April of the lab findings. 'Police were told that in the opinion of the laboratory staff the item was not bone but wood or a seed,' said the statement.

'However, this was qualified by the statement that if it was bone it was very old bone. By this time, anyway, the item had been eliminated from the inquiry because of the confirmation of the archaeological context in which it had been found. An announcement was made to this effect and as a result it was decided to take it no further.'

Police added that other pieces of bone and children's teeth had also been found at the home, and were currently being examined.

Other aspects of the case have also drawn criticism, including the use of a sniffer dog that apparently detected the bone under a layer of concrete.